1. Playing around in nostalgia territory and am amused by how well pop music re-uses itself over and over.
For instance, in May-Oct 1993, #1 spots were dominated mostly by three songs:
8 weeks: "That's the Way Love Goes" (Janet Jackson) --> samples "Papa Don't Take No Mess" by James Brown (1974)
7 weeks: "(I Can't Help) Falling in Love with You (UB40) --> cover of "We Can't Help Falling in Love" by Elvis (1961)
8 weeks: "Dreamlover" (Mariah Carey) --> samples "Blind Alley" by The Emotions (1972)
2. Compare that kind of pop-culture inertia to, say, 1974, where the top spot cycled much more frequently, yet those songs have been sampled heavily in the years since.
I'm a music junkie and have been on a European-pop binge the last couple months. It amazes me how many beats/songs/samples are reused in the European market...and occasionally I'll find the exact song redone for Euro or American consumption (especially popular with Spanish speaking artists to do the same track in both English and Spanish for varying markets).
My most recent find is:
Yall - Hundred Miles (recently on Euro charts) ---> Beat rips off Major Lazer & DJ Snake - Lean On (from last summer)
Is it me, or did the 80's just have better music. Maybe it's just the when you become cognizant of music. My first album was Men at Work. Wore that tape out, and the music is STILL good.
Here's what happened as far as I'm aware: changes in radio station ownership in the 1990s created a much less competitive and more homogeneous musical environment, leading to less variety in hit music.
> NATIONAL RADIO STATION OWNERSHIP RULE CHANGES REQUIRED- The Commission shall modify section 73.3555 of its regulations (47 C.F.R. 73.3555) by eliminating any provisions limiting the number of AM or FM broadcast stations which may be owned or controlled by one entity nationally.
Prior to this, each city had its own local stations and they'd all compete with each other. This change paved the way for Clear Channel aka iHeartMedia, Inc to purchase pretty much every commercial radio station around the country, resulting in the same programs everywhere. I read a reddit post recently that went into more detail about the process but I can't find it.
Ian MacDonald in 1994, at the ending of Revolution in the Head:
> Arguably pop music, as measured by the singles charts, peaked in early 1966, thereafter beginning a shallow decline in overall quality which was already steepening by 1970. While some will date this tail-off to a little later, only the soulless or tone-deaf will refuse to admit any decline at all. Those with ears to hear, let them hear.
After a couple more decades of continuing (though not uniform and consistent) overall decline, the broad truth of this looks more evident than ever. In much the same way that classical music probably peaked roughly around the death of Beethoven, with the shallow decline in overall quality becoming steeper some time in the late nineteenth to early twentieth century.
Not just that, but the 80s had way more movement up and down in the top 5. There was fierce competition and experimentation. Look at the 90s and you get some bands that stay FOREVER on the top 5 for weeks in a row. Never happened in the 80s.
The late 70s to mid 80s always felt like the musical equivalent to the early 1900s in Modern art. A lot of breaking down of old styles and habits, introduction of new tools, collaborating and stealing ideas from each other. New Wave, Hip Hop, etc.
>Is it me, or did the 80's just have better music. Maybe it's just the when you become cognizant of music.
That can be part of it, but some eras can have better music than others too, period. The same way some centuries have tons of important artistic and intellectual works and others are mostly void of them: societies changes, new models, etc.
This is especially the case with respect to specific genres: e.g. not so much good bebop in 1990-2010 as in 1940s, even though there is some. Genres have their peaks and lows. This holds for genres like rock and r&b too.
So obviously YMMV, but I was born in '92 and my roommate and I listened through basically this whole thing last night - and we both agree with you, the '80s was where it was at.
I listened all the way up to the 90s. I have to wonder how this chart is determined. While obviously many of the popular songs of the period trend, there are some places where it doesn't seem right. For example Michael Jackson's Thriller never broke #3, and MJ barely made the top ten week chart until BAD came out. That can't be right. I checked Wikipedia and it says all MJ songs from that album made #1.
What I would love to see is how many plays/streams each number one got "this" week by comparison. It would be interesting to see the longevity of some of the songs as a replacement for "good", i.e. are there hit songs from the 60's or 70's that still get way more plays than hit songs from the 90's or 00's.
Is there a way to hear it in the background? Every time I switch tabs, it stops playing. Also, it sometimes mixes up songs from different periods (1958+1997)
>Is there a way to hear it in the background? Every time I switch tabs, it stops playing. Also, it sometimes mixes up songs from different periods (1958+1997)
A quick cheat for sites that stop "running" when switching tabs is to open them in a new window of their own, with no other tabs open in it.
You can then return to your "main" browsing window and get back to whatever you were working on previously.
I opened it side-by-side with my other tabs (using win + left arrow, win + right arrorw) after pulling the tab out. That way I can continue browsing without actually putting the other tab in the background.
It is a silly restriction!
edit: mootothemax's suggestion is even better, I didn't realize the tab can go in the background after being split out.
Interesting how some themes changed completely. You would never expect to hear "ballad of green berets" as top song anymore.
I think there is noticeable deterioration in music quality of the top hit during the past millenia. I guess it's combination of several factors: music getting cheaper, youngsters getting more money. And people in their thirties having more and more options on what to listen, so they are less likely to herd the record store on any one given single. I'd say music was still good in 86. (I was born then.)
From 2001 onwards it seems the teens started to swarm billboard social 100 or something. Boybands are out and music is suddenly OK again.
>I think there is noticeable deterioration in music quality of the top hit during the past millenia.
Just to nitpick, I think most of us know too little about the hit music of 1016 to tell. The English top 10 probably included coronation songs for Edmund Ironside and then Cnut, but apart from that, we don't know much.
But I agree that much of the hits I've heard since 2000 are mostly crap. I bet it is because I'm getting old.
> I think there is noticeable deterioration in music quality of the top hit during the past millenia.
Maybe the top hits, but not music in general.
The main reason is, in my opinion, the diversification of styles and the more varied tastes of the listeners.
For example, a lot of the music that I listen to would never be played on the radio (partly because this was not the main intention of the artists).
The other reason is, of course, the business-ification (?) of music - we have no problem with the term "music industry" it seems.
There are bands which are "companies", and they produce "products" which happen to be songs.
They invest a lot in PR and marketing, they research and deliver what the market wants, just like a for-profit enterprise would. This is somewhat opposed to "true" artists, who express their feelings and emotions through music.
I've always looked skeptically at these "tops", because they are not about music, but about the business behind it.
Some of the songs, though, are good and I enjoy hearing an older song because it reminds me of certain time-space points, which is to say, they bring good memories about when I was younger.
Interest has diversified (and globalization has made access to foreign music easier), and the "top" sales don't really matter any more, because between hundreds of sub-genres, "pop" music is an artefact that doesn't represent any useful audience any longer. Teens aren't really swarming billboards, they're using social media to discover artists and… acquire music in ways that rarely impacts sales metrics.
> I think there is noticeable deterioration in music quality of the top hit during the past millenia.
Despite being one whose personal preference is for music that's over a couple of hundred years old, I think your comment comes across as elitist. It's fine to have personal preferences, but I don't know how you'll justify such a claim.
I think a big part of the deterioration of musical quality is connected to three major factors:
1. Recorded music has meant less need for such large numbers of musicians, as a result the pool of potential talent is lower. Much less live music is performed as a result, as a result the pool of musicians with great live musical abilities has gone down.
2. Multi-track and then computer recording has made it possible to make much more 'effects' based music, which wows the ears sonically, but requires less musicianship to back it up. The large producers of pop music has largely clung to using these techniques to give their music a unique 'modern' sound, largely fueled by the latest developments in technology.
3. The ever progressing corporatization of the music industry.
Even at the time it seems the success of "Ballad of the Green Berets" was pretty self-conscious, a counter-counter-cultural statement by record buyers.
> You would never expect to hear "ballad of green berets" as top song anymore.
It's very much an outlier--I suspect the "Silent Majority" deliberately pushed that to the top of the charts as a protest against all the hippie counterculture stuff that was in the charts until then.
I enjoyed this,but was surprised to see how the older stuff (1970s) skyrocketed to the top, then PLUMMETED off after a week. Compare to 2000s where a song can stay at top for a month, and may drift down.
As others point out, changes in how tracked (radio play vs. download sales vs. streams) can change this, but it is fascinating to see visually.
It still happens today, but perhaps more rarely. For physical copies I'd bet a large part of the problem is simply availability, and by the 2000s most labels had gotten better at a solid distribution flow. If you sell out 10k albums in your first week, but have no more ready to go next week, you're going to drop pretty hard.
> I enjoyed this,but was surprised to see how the older stuff (1970s) skyrocketed to the top, then PLUMMETED off after a week. Compare to 2000s where a song can stay at top for a month, and may drift down.
Yes, this is fascinating to see, and I believe there is some high correlation between the speed of changes and the quality of the produced music.
I wonder if different folks are listening (or reporting anyway). How did popularity used to get tracked? Callin requests to radio stations? Is that still how its done?
I got to the early 70s before i ran out of time. The 60s were an incredible time for music. The sheer variety is amazing. Pop, soul, bossa nova, rock. I think the 90s had a smaller creative burst with rock and hip hop and to some degree dance/electronic genres. I'm ready for another music revolution.
It's easy to forget just how well some modern artists fine-tuned the hit song production process. Everyone thinks of The Beatles, but Mariah Carey, Rihanna, and Beyonce (if we include her Destiny's Child time) all beat them for weeks at #1.
Going by weeks at #1, Mariah Carey is probably the most popular artist of all time (i.e., since Billboard started recording). She also had a collab ("One Sweet Day") that still holds the record for most weeks at #1. Not only her raw numbers, but her career delivered #1s spanning 3 decades.
I guess I never thought that she was as big as she is/was.
However, even over the course of the '80s singles sales plunged from their '60s/'70s level, so those later long runs at #1 aren't as impressive in absolute terms.
Thank you for this! If anyone is interested in the evolution of pop music over time (especially the last 20 years) and how hits are made, read "The Song Machine: Inside the Hit Factory"
They are overrepresented in popular music generally. Pretty much all pop music is derived from forms developed by african-americans: blues, jazz, disco, techno etc.
Hah, cool - Nel Cielo Dipinto di Blu (aka Volare) was the last Italian song to get anywhere on US charts.
With good reason IMO - I'm not much of a fan of Italian pop. I go for a bit more esoteric stuff like Fishbone, Oregon's own Cherry Poppin' Daddies, and Los Fabulosos Cadillacs.
Its quite easy tracking song popularity down to number plays, thanks to the streaming services, but thats now. Any idea where the old data is coming from? Couldn't find any links on the site.
Had to stop the music at first. 1990s' western music (pop music that is, can't see anything else there) was... well - bad. Didn't even realize up until now.
[+] [-] robbiemitchell|10 years ago|reply
1. Playing around in nostalgia territory and am amused by how well pop music re-uses itself over and over.
For instance, in May-Oct 1993, #1 spots were dominated mostly by three songs:
8 weeks: "That's the Way Love Goes" (Janet Jackson) --> samples "Papa Don't Take No Mess" by James Brown (1974)
7 weeks: "(I Can't Help) Falling in Love with You (UB40) --> cover of "We Can't Help Falling in Love" by Elvis (1961)
8 weeks: "Dreamlover" (Mariah Carey) --> samples "Blind Alley" by The Emotions (1972)
2. Compare that kind of pop-culture inertia to, say, 1974, where the top spot cycled much more frequently, yet those songs have been sampled heavily in the years since.
[+] [-] dikdik|10 years ago|reply
My most recent find is:
Yall - Hundred Miles (recently on Euro charts) ---> Beat rips off Major Lazer & DJ Snake - Lean On (from last summer)
[+] [-] tinkerdol|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JusticeJuice|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LeoPanthera|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] madengr|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Nav_Panel|10 years ago|reply
The details: 1996 Telecommunications Act (viewable http://transition.fcc.gov/Reports/tcom1996.txt ), string search for "SEC. 202. BROADCAST OWNERSHIP":
> NATIONAL RADIO STATION OWNERSHIP RULE CHANGES REQUIRED- The Commission shall modify section 73.3555 of its regulations (47 C.F.R. 73.3555) by eliminating any provisions limiting the number of AM or FM broadcast stations which may be owned or controlled by one entity nationally.
Prior to this, each city had its own local stations and they'd all compete with each other. This change paved the way for Clear Channel aka iHeartMedia, Inc to purchase pretty much every commercial radio station around the country, resulting in the same programs everywhere. I read a reddit post recently that went into more detail about the process but I can't find it.
[+] [-] leoc|10 years ago|reply
> Arguably pop music, as measured by the singles charts, peaked in early 1966, thereafter beginning a shallow decline in overall quality which was already steepening by 1970. While some will date this tail-off to a little later, only the soulless or tone-deaf will refuse to admit any decline at all. Those with ears to hear, let them hear.
After a couple more decades of continuing (though not uniform and consistent) overall decline, the broad truth of this looks more evident than ever. In much the same way that classical music probably peaked roughly around the death of Beethoven, with the shallow decline in overall quality becoming steeper some time in the late nineteenth to early twentieth century.
[+] [-] rco8786|10 years ago|reply
Almost certainly this.
[+] [-] ekianjo|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gedy|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] coldtea|10 years ago|reply
That can be part of it, but some eras can have better music than others too, period. The same way some centuries have tons of important artistic and intellectual works and others are mostly void of them: societies changes, new models, etc.
This is especially the case with respect to specific genres: e.g. not so much good bebop in 1990-2010 as in 1940s, even though there is some. Genres have their peaks and lows. This holds for genres like rock and r&b too.
[+] [-] lmitchell|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] transfire|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] delgaudm|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danielsf|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tribe|10 years ago|reply
http://www.verysmallarray.com/?p=1752
[+] [-] pathsjs|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mootothemax|10 years ago|reply
A quick cheat for sites that stop "running" when switching tabs is to open them in a new window of their own, with no other tabs open in it.
You can then return to your "main" browsing window and get back to whatever you were working on previously.
[+] [-] USAnum1|10 years ago|reply
It is a silly restriction!
edit: mootothemax's suggestion is even better, I didn't realize the tab can go in the background after being split out.
[+] [-] Kiro|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] johnnyb9|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] vlehto|10 years ago|reply
I think there is noticeable deterioration in music quality of the top hit during the past millenia. I guess it's combination of several factors: music getting cheaper, youngsters getting more money. And people in their thirties having more and more options on what to listen, so they are less likely to herd the record store on any one given single. I'd say music was still good in 86. (I was born then.)
From 2001 onwards it seems the teens started to swarm billboard social 100 or something. Boybands are out and music is suddenly OK again.
[+] [-] ptaipale|10 years ago|reply
Just to nitpick, I think most of us know too little about the hit music of 1016 to tell. The English top 10 probably included coronation songs for Edmund Ironside and then Cnut, but apart from that, we don't know much.
But I agree that much of the hits I've heard since 2000 are mostly crap. I bet it is because I'm getting old.
[+] [-] justsaysmthng|10 years ago|reply
Maybe the top hits, but not music in general.
The main reason is, in my opinion, the diversification of styles and the more varied tastes of the listeners.
For example, a lot of the music that I listen to would never be played on the radio (partly because this was not the main intention of the artists).
The other reason is, of course, the business-ification (?) of music - we have no problem with the term "music industry" it seems.
There are bands which are "companies", and they produce "products" which happen to be songs. They invest a lot in PR and marketing, they research and deliver what the market wants, just like a for-profit enterprise would. This is somewhat opposed to "true" artists, who express their feelings and emotions through music.
I've always looked skeptically at these "tops", because they are not about music, but about the business behind it. Some of the songs, though, are good and I enjoy hearing an older song because it reminds me of certain time-space points, which is to say, they bring good memories about when I was younger.
[+] [-] creshal|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lake99|10 years ago|reply
Despite being one whose personal preference is for music that's over a couple of hundred years old, I think your comment comes across as elitist. It's fine to have personal preferences, but I don't know how you'll justify such a claim.
[+] [-] pazra|10 years ago|reply
1. Recorded music has meant less need for such large numbers of musicians, as a result the pool of potential talent is lower. Much less live music is performed as a result, as a result the pool of musicians with great live musical abilities has gone down.
2. Multi-track and then computer recording has made it possible to make much more 'effects' based music, which wows the ears sonically, but requires less musicianship to back it up. The large producers of pop music has largely clung to using these techniques to give their music a unique 'modern' sound, largely fueled by the latest developments in technology.
3. The ever progressing corporatization of the music industry.
[+] [-] leoc|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] philwelch|10 years ago|reply
It's very much an outlier--I suspect the "Silent Majority" deliberately pushed that to the top of the charts as a protest against all the hippie counterculture stuff that was in the charts until then.
[+] [-] mwexler|10 years ago|reply
As others point out, changes in how tracked (radio play vs. download sales vs. streams) can change this, but it is fascinating to see visually.
[+] [-] xyience|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] ekianjo|10 years ago|reply
Yes, this is fascinating to see, and I believe there is some high correlation between the speed of changes and the quality of the produced music.
[+] [-] JoeAltmaier|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] S_A_P|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] briHass|10 years ago|reply
Going by weeks at #1, Mariah Carey is probably the most popular artist of all time (i.e., since Billboard started recording). She also had a collab ("One Sweet Day") that still holds the record for most weeks at #1. Not only her raw numbers, but her career delivered #1s spanning 3 decades.
I guess I never thought that she was as big as she is/was.
[+] [-] leoc|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mitchpron|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] oneloop|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] JonnieCache|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] philwelch|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] davidw|10 years ago|reply
With good reason IMO - I'm not much of a fan of Italian pop. I go for a bit more esoteric stuff like Fishbone, Oregon's own Cherry Poppin' Daddies, and Los Fabulosos Cadillacs.
[+] [-] lomnakkus|10 years ago|reply
I have to wonder how many of these Nile Rodgers[1] is responsible for.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nile_Rodgers
[+] [-] dbalan|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] danielsf|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] plasticxme|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] konart|10 years ago|reply
Had to stop the music at first. 1990s' western music (pop music that is, can't see anything else there) was... well - bad. Didn't even realize up until now.
[+] [-] ck2|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] santa_boy|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] k-mcgrady|10 years ago|reply